I know the the p3at by keltec is a lot lighter, but whats the big difference other than that? Are the Bersa guns reliable? Thinkin on gettin one. HG

For what purpose? Pocket carry? IWB carry?

Personally, if I was going to go with a .380 it would be for pocket carry. In that case, it makes much more sense to go smaller and lighter. The P3AT (or Ruger LCP) is lighter and smaller than the Bersa. So, why go with the bersa? If you're going to go IWB, than the Bersa isn't much easier to conceal than your Taurus either I wouldn't think. What would it's purpose be?

I will own a P3AT or Ruger LCP in the near future. I don't see any Bersas in my future. There are plenty of people that have no issues with the Bersas at all, but if I was going for a gun that would for the most part be a BUG or an ultra-concealable type gun (the only reasons to go with a .380 IMO), than it would be the smallest possible (Read - P3AT, LCP). Just my .02

I agree with the other guys. The only real purpose of a .380 these days is as a pocket gun, and the KelTec clearly wins for pocket carry versus the Bersa. The Bersa is as big as a lot of 9mms and .40s. Why carry a .380 as a belt gun when you can carry a more powerful gun?

The bersa will probably be more comfortable, size wise, for a larg handed person, harder to pocket carry tho (as has been stated yes). Nicer (read less noticable recoil) to shoot, and my appeal more to someon concerned with that. You don't strike me as too concerned with felt recoil, but, if say your wife/gf/mom/sister might be looking for a smaller purse gun with less kick than a 9mm, a bersa (or walther, or feg) might be better suited. So again, for what purpose?

The Bersa 380 Thunder is a double action, has a external hammer which you can cock, with a round in the chamber, or take the saftey off and fire. Each time fired the hammer is in the cocked position. The Kel-Tec is a single action, round in he chamber where the hammer has to travel the entire distance each time you fire which makes it less accurate IMO. Correct me if I am wrong. LOVE YALL

The Bersa 380 Thunder is a double action, has a external hammer which you can cock, with a round in the chamber, or take the saftey off and fire. Each time fired the hammer is in the cocked position. The Kel-Tec is a single action, round in he chamber where the hammer has to travel the entire distance each time you fire which makes it less accurate IMO. Correct me if I am wrong.

The Kel Tec is DAO (Double Action Only). It cannot be cocked manually, therefore making it impossible to be a single action gun.

Steve summed up the difference pretty well in a past thread:

Originally Posted by Steve M1911A1

SA (Single Action) = the trigger feels the same, always. The trigger pull is short, and can be pretty light.DAO (Double-Action Only) = the trigger feels the same, always. The pull is usually long and relatively heavy. This is a useful option, for instance for a pocket-carry pistol.DA/SA ("Traditional" Double Action) = in a semi-auto, the trigger feels long and heavy for your first shot, and then switches to relatively short and light for all subsequent shots. Some people find that the transition from DA first shot to SA subsequent shots negatively affects speed and accuracy. But in a revolver, you have the choice of DA or SA for each shot, at your option, and pay no transition penalty.

pocket carry p3at or lcp. iwb either xd9sc or glock 26 I believe for ultra concealable. I've been hunting down the pocket carry/ultra concealed and these would be my choice IMO.

After getting my CCW recently I have been thinking along the same lines. Although, I limited my choices to Kel-Tec P3-AT vs. Kel-Tec PF-9. I opted for the PF-9, had some issues out of the box and have sent it back for repair. Having had it for a few days my observation is that even on a large frame guy (6'-2"/285#) the PF-9 is NOT a pocket gun. However, in a deep IWB holster it should be infinitely more concealable than my Beretta 92FS!

Knowing that Kel-Tec will probably have my PF-9 for a month or more, and getting frustrated with carrying my Beretta, I may just go back and pick up a P3-AT as well. It just seems like the logical thing to do

The Kel Tec is DAO (Double Action Only). It cannot be cocked manually, therefore making it impossible to be a single action gun.

Steve summed up the difference pretty well in a past thread:

Well,I got some of it backwards. Sorry! I think you knew what I was trying to say. I meant the harder it is to pull the trigger the less accurate. I have the Colt Cobra in my avatar and when you cock it, it is the most accurate gun i have as opposed to just pulling the trigger. (I hit a basketball 5 of the 6 at 50yards.) in the cocked position. Pretty good shooting for a old man HUH. Good info. THANKS.

Well,I got some of it backwards. Sorry! I think you knew what I was trying to say. I meant the harder it is to pull the trigger the less accurate. I have the Colt Cobra in my avatar and when you cock it, it is the most accurate gun i have as opposed to just pulling the trigger. (I hit a basketball 5 of the 6 at 50yards.) in the cocked position. Pretty good shooting for a old man HUH. Good info. THANKS.

Accuracy has more to do with the user than with the trigger action. Practice, practice, practice...

After getting my CCW recently I have been thinking along the same lines. Although, I limited my choices to Kel-Tec P3-AT vs. Kel-Tec PF-9. I opted for the PF-9, had some issues out of the box and have sent it back for repair. Having had it for a few days my observation is that even on a large frame guy (6'-2"/285#) the PF-9 is NOT a pocket gun. However, in a deep IWB holster it should be infinitely more concealable than my Beretta 92FS!

Knowing that Kel-Tec will probably have my PF-9 for a month or more, and getting frustrated with carrying my Beretta, I may just go back and pick up a P3-AT as well. It just seems like the logical thing to do

What was wrong with your PF-9? I was thinking of getting one, actually. Either that or the PF-11. How does it handle with other 9 mm you have shot?